===========================================
#opnfv-meeting: Weekly Technical Discussion
===========================================


Meeting started by bh526r at 14:12:08 UTC.  The full logs are available
at
http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2017/opnfv-meeting.2017-01-12-14.12.log.html
.



Meeting summary
---------------

* Uli started with describing current scenario list he captured from
  wiki page  (bh526r, 14:12:40)
* Team discussed the owners of scenarios  (bh526r, 14:14:04)
* Team looked at the historical reasons of why majority of scenario
  owners are installer teams, i.e. complexity of integration techniques
  of different installers  (bh526r, 14:15:34)
* There were some exceptions, such as BGPVPN scenario owner is BGPVPN
  project  (bh526r, 14:16:20)
* Team discussed the basic rationale, ie. whoever cares about the
  scenario, whoever does the work  (bh526r, 14:18:27)
* "Care" means having time and expertise, i.e. interested in working on
  it, and able to work on it  (bh526r, 14:19:08)
* Tim indicated that there are inherent relationships among scenarios.
  (bh526r, 14:21:43)
* For example, BGPVPN scenario is based on odl_l2 scenarios  (bh526r,
  14:22:07)
* At a certain time, sub-scenarios may be mature enough and can be
  merged back to parent scenario  (bh526r, 14:25:03)
* Team examined the history of why odl_l2 is needed, i.e primarily
  because IPv6 support in odl_l3 wasn't there yet. If we wanted IPv6
  feature in tenant networks, we could only use OpenStack L3 agent +
  odl_l2  (bh526r, 14:31:50)
* Now IPv6 support in ODL L3 is getting much better, and there still
  might be some gaps  (bh526r, 14:32:56)
* Soon in the future, ODL L3 can fully support IPv6, and we will no
  longer need odl_l2  (bh526r, 14:34:40)
* One suggestion is to rename odl_l2 to IPv6 scenario as part of
  consolidation effort  (bh526r, 14:35:15)
* Tim suggested to clean up scenario owner first  (bh526r, 14:39:05)
* Uli indicated that the challenge is to find the people first  (bh526r,
  14:39:47)
* Consensus is to ask current scenario owners to identify better
  alternatives that can own scenarios  (bh526r, 14:45:21)
* Next step is to ask scenario owners to align with installers  (bh526r,
  14:47:05)
* One approach is to stay as-is, whatever is done historically, keep it
  that way  (bh526r, 14:50:58)
* The other approach is to proactively identify the difference among
  installers, and consolidate / align them to get the same end state
  (bh526r, 14:52:01)
* The goal is that for feature testing, it should be agnostic of
  installers  (bh526r, 14:53:02)
* The immediate action is for Uli to work with community and find the
  better owners of scenarios  (bh526r, 14:57:30)
* Discussion then went on HA v.s. noha  (bh526r, 15:03:23)
* We will continue discussion next week.  (bh526r, 15:03:51)



Meeting ended at 15:04:05 UTC.



People present (lines said)
---------------------------

* bh526r (25)
* collabot (3)



Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4